Talk:Expedition locates wreck of World War II-sunk ship Montevideo Maru

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Notes[edit]

  • The numbers in the sources vary and are imprecise. Wikipedia even has a section dedicated to this. 1080 did seem to be pretty consistent for the total, although, it could be replaced with "more than 1000"
  • Reviewer will have to watch the Marles video tweet, as I transcribed from it. I wanted our quotes to be somewhat different than the Post and CNN
  • Reviewer may wonder how CNN is dated for Friday if this is from Saturday. The answer is simple, CNN published late evening in US Eastern time after it had been Saturday in Australia for many hours
  • The Silentworld FAQ is also definitely used as a source.

SVTCobra 23:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4723038 [Passed][edit]

Revision 4723038 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: Good article, I had to switch to active voice in some places. Marles said a word — something like chapter? — in between "Australian" and "families" that I couldn't understand, which could have been added otherwise.

The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4723038 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: Good article, I had to switch to active voice in some places. Marles said a word — something like chapter? — in between "Australian" and "families" that I couldn't understand, which could have been added otherwise.

The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Review of revision 4723038 [Passed][edit]

Revision 4723038 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: Good article, I had to switch to active voice in some places. Marles said a word — something like chapter? — in between "Australian" and "families" that I couldn't understand, which could have been added otherwise.

The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4723038 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: Good article, I had to switch to active voice in some places. Marles said a word — something like chapter? — in between "Australian" and "families" that I couldn't understand, which could have been added otherwise.

The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
EzPR had an error of failing to determine the latest revision ID, which I suppose is why it double-reviewed and sighted, unsighted, then resighted the publishing edit. Heavy Water (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki[edit]

Does Wikidata allow for links to incubators? SVTCobra 13:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears not. Sorry. Heavy Water (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, support for Incubator links is not yet implemented. Local linking is possible to Hungarian pages because there is a closed wn wiki in this language - adding incubator: acts like as it would be a namespace, and it redirects correctly. In my experience, local linking to most other incubated projects does not work: their links redirect to the testproject main page by default. - Xbspiro (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Date of access[edit]

@JJLiu112: @SVTCobra has stated in the past they place sources that appear to be older below regardless of the access date, and I think it is not an unreasonable stretch to presume that is the page the New York Post is referring to when they reference "a statement...from Silentworld". Heavy Water (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WN:CS states only "Multiple independent sources are usually required and they should be listed newest → oldest with no spaces between the {{source}} templates." WN:SG similarly says "Sources should be listed chronologically, from the most recent to the oldest." WN:ARTICLE does not mention it. I have always felt that an undated static or semi-static source can be assumed to be older than the most recent news articles and thus I put them lower. However, after poking around a bit in the archives, I must admit the majority of the precedent articles do in fact sort sources based on the access date as if it were the publication date. So precedent is not on my side, though I may disagree with the logic.
In this recent article, we have a source that is the US gov't page on legislation from 1979. While everything has the same date so the issue is moot for this particular article, it would seem weird to me if such an old source was listed first, ahead of the articles that form the focal event. Anyway, I can be amenable to just strictly using all dates for the sorting of sources. Cheers, SVTCobra 19:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only going from what I've noticed in past, e.g. 130 countries at OECD summit agree to back global corporate tax rate, Canada, EU, UK, US impose sanctions on Belarus over Ryanair hijacking, Arizona bans abortion for genetic abnormalities &c. So...precedent is my call. JJLiu112 (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Expedition_locates_wreck_of_World_War_II-sunk_ship_Montevideo_Maru&oldid=4723411"